Everything
that needs to be known is now known: The reasons the Bush Administration gave
for the American war in Iraq were all falsehoods or
deceptions, and every day the US
occupation continues deepens the very problems it was supposed to solve.
Therefore there can no longer be any doubt: The war - an unprovoked,
unnecessary and unlawful invasion that has turned into a colonial-style
occupation - is a moral and political catastrophe. As such it is a growing
stain on the honor of every American who acquiesces, actively or passively, in
its conduct and continuation.

The
war has also become the single greatest threat to our national security. Its
human and economic costs are spiraling out of control, with no end in sight. It
has driven America's reputation in the world to a
historic low point. In the meantime, real threats suffer terrible neglect.
These include more terrorist attacks, jeopardized oil supplies, rising tension
with China, the spread of nuclear and other
weapons of mass destruction and even natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
All are pushed aside as this Administration pours the country's blood, treasure
and political energy into a futile war. In short, ending the Iraq War is the
most pressing issue facing America
today. Until it is ended, a constructive national security policy cannot be
forged.

Americans
are well on their way to a full appreciation of the dimensions of this debacle.
In an October CBS news poll, 59 percent of citizens surveyed and 73 percent of
Democrats now want an end to US
military involvement in Iraq. But this growing majority has
made its judgment with virtually no help from our nation's leaders. Most
shameful has been the Democratic Party's failure to oppose the war. Indeed,
support for it has been bipartisan: A Republican President and Congress made
the policy, and almost all of the leading Democrats - most of the honorable
exceptions are members of the House of Representatives - supported it from the
outset and continue to do so. To their credit, would-be presidential candidate
Senator Russell Feingold and former Senator Gary Hart have recently made strong
antiwar statements. More recently two other presidential contenders, Senator
John Kerry and former Senator John Edwards, have begun to call for a shift in
policy, though still in vague and reticent terms. More typical, however, are
the other presidential hopefuls, Senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and
Evan Bayh, who continue to huddle for cover in "the center." They
offer little alternative to Bush's refrain "We must stay the course!"
Nor do the party's Congressional leaders and its head, Howard Dean, once a
leader of antiwar sentiment. Can such politicians, who cannot even follow a
majority - in the Democratic Party, a large majority - really be considered
leaders?

The
Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate
for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her
campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry
that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the
consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences
of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse
disaster by continuing the occupation.

We
firmly believe that antiwar candidates, with the other requisite credentials,
can win the 2006 Congressional elections, the 2008 Democratic presidential
primaries and the subsequent national election. But this fight, and our stand,
must begin now.

In
the coming weeks and months The Nation will help identify - and encourage
support for - those candidates prepared to bring a speedy end to the war and to
begin the hard work of forging a new national security policy that an end to
the Iraq War will make possible.

There
is no other way to save America's security and honor. And to
those Democratic "leaders" who continue to insist that the safer,
more electable course is to remain openly or silently complicit in the war, we
say, paraphrasing the moral philosopher Hillel: If not now, when? If not you,
who?